All the games from Infinity ward have been trash since they fired the lead developers of MW2. I always buy them in hopes that they will be tightly tuned games with a good physics engine and solid maps+gameplay but it is never the case.

I have no idea why I buy every single CoD release, yet I hate the series so much

That's the current state of game industry in a nutshell. A sad sight honestly.
Doesn't matter how much you hate the series, or if you play it or not. If you buy it, they get the money anyway, and that's the only thing they care for. Not only that, but your purchase gets carefully counted towards the total amount of copies sold, so on the next CEO meeting, they could show them beatiful sales graphs etc.
There's only one way you can stop this conveyor of bland mediocrity (I'm use very, very mild words right here), and it is - to vote with your money. If you'd actually hated these games like you claim, you simply wouldn't buy them.

Considering the Spawn system is horrible and the campers and the ghost...this game needs no skill, lLEts say I fire 3 rounds in someone his chest he should die as wear i get shit once in my back and i die Instantly even though I was the one who shoots first what is with this bullshit?

Second the camping on Call off duty people consider it pro where it means yo uare realy shit that is all third the spawn system is horrible having people spawn right behind you kill you straight away last time i heard we made the spawn system work you wont or can see for the first 3 seconds whe nspawning, qell fuck right off.

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one in this thread that had little to no idea as to what this guy just said. Is it really that difficult to create a thread where people will know what the fuck you are saying after they read through it just once?

Anyhoo, I do agree that getting killed as soon as you respawn is total bullshit. Today I was playing some groundwar and I died about 8 times in row in a matter of like 10 seconds... I would either be gunned down from behind as soon as I spawned or get raped by a drone after taking a few steps after I would spawn -_- It was easily the worst luck I've had so far, but oh well, there is no such thing as a perfect game.

I really can't talk on how the "same" the game is like a lot of people do these days because I only took interest in FPS games after I quit WoW when DS came out so I've only played MW3 and BLOPS2. I've played MW2 and BLOPS1 only on campaign because I pirated them :P But I will say that campaign wise MW3 felt like a giant DLC for MW2 because there was little to no difference in the gameplay.

Also, don't shoot my head off for asking this but.... Isn't one of the major selling point of almost every FPS game out there is that any average joe can pick up the game and be somewhat decent at it? That whole argument just seems to be a little silly to me.

Its does not reward "in close accuracy" any more than any other shooter really and it does reward camping and not open game play. Try BF3 the close combat in that is far better you can actually see where weapon choice effects results and the tactics your team choose is very quickly make or break.

I have always loved the single player of COD just as the single player of the BF series has always been poor relatively. I do not hate COD multiplayer for the sake of it. I do not mine activision etc I don't mind them one bit so not on that band wagon. I dislike the multiplayer because its to crowded and lacking variety in to many ways for my liking. Its not well thought out in many ways and only seems to cater well for kids who just like to run around mindlessly shooting ppl with out tactics or thought. Thats just my 2 cents ofc.

They could release new game every 3 months or 3 years for all I care if they keep doing the multiplayer the way its has been I have not bought one since MW2 which I loved the single player on the hardest setting and the story. But thats where the rot set in for multiplayer for me and I never bought MW1.

SMGs definitely rule the game currently. That's a balance issue that I'm sure Treyarch will fix in the coming patches. But every gun has a role, LMGS are a little campier, you move slowly and you have enough ammo to take out at least 20 people if you don't spray like a fail. SMGs are for close range engagements, they empty their clip fast, they have quite a bit of recoil, their firing rate is the highest of the classes. Then the ARs are for mid range engagements where accuracy matters while still providing moderate damage. Snipers are obviously long range. So really, accuracy matters, and it matters what gun you bring to a fight.

Activision and Treyarch give people what they want, a game where you can come home from work or school, jump right into and get to work sucking ass or kicking ass. Idk about you, but CoD has NEVER been about the single player. That is ALWAYS an afterthought. The storyline has been pretty retarded since MW2, and I thought MW2 was decent storywise, but MW3 was just retarded and black ops 1 and 2 are just, lolwtf campaigns, nothing special or memorable whatsoever.

If people want to be FPS elitists and pretend they're better at a game than others because they pick a game that is supposedly harder and takes more skill, then they can go to the battlefield series. The funny thing is, no matter how much people hate on CoD games, the gaming developers all copy a bit from the series and put it into their game. Loadouts, sprint, perks, ordinance drops... all are spinoffs of CoD staples. Battlefield 3 took a lot from CoD too, it is a huge leap from what BFBC2 was when looking over the BF series as a whole. So as much as people hate on it, the people keep buying and companies know CoD is the cashcow, so they take what they can from it.

CoD is simply a game to rage in and run around having fun. It isn't meant to be a multiplayer with a ton of depth and variance with vehicles and roles like BF3. It's a simple infantry game that focuses on giving people as many kills as they can get in the coolest way possible. That sells, and people like it.

Also, idk how anyone can say CoD doesn't reward play styles. It doesn't reward camping at all. Campers are hated by everyone, you only look like a fool if you have to camp. Running and gunning is actually a huge gamble, there is a lot of risk running around the map. You have to choose where you go, choose what doors to enter for fear of there being a trap or a guy there. Watch CoD videos by some of the top players who release videos, you'll see there is a difference between the average CoD player, and the ones who stand out and get massive killstreaks on a regular basis simply by the run and gun tactic.

Running and gunning requires quick thinking and a good reaction time, it also requires the most accuracy of any "role", moreso than the sniper simply because the sniper usually has more recovery time between shots due to their long range and hopefully careful placement of where they shoot from, taking into account cover etc.

We're telling the same story overall, but I have a couple of disagreements. While I am not big on the ordinance drops and RNG as a whole, the RNG of weapons on the map isn't a better system. Admittedly, though I like the IDEA of having it be a system where you get what you start with and nothing else, I'd likely be unhappy with the monotony in that. I prefer the ordinance drop RNG to the map RNG though, as EVERY map seems to somehow favor one side over the other, as none are 100% symmetrical. Ordinance drops reward skill/performance, rather than which side you spawn on.

Haha yeah I read your post right after mine and realized we were saying essentially the same thing. Great minds think alike right. Good to know there's someone out there who feels about the same as I do though regarding both of these franchises.

Yeah I'm not sure what 343 was thinking when they decided to make random weapon spawns on the map. Luckily I try to play mostly MLG gametypes where map spawns are set, and some other small nuances are taken into consideration.

Originally Posted by Lilfrier

So I'll agree that there are imperfections with Halo, but they're overall very minor in terms of potential impact. The number one thing I want changed though is the removal of the Killcam. I think that thing's an abomination to competitive gaming, and the fact that it's 100% inaccurate (always nice watching a person shoot a pillar 5 feet away from you as you die) makes it even worse.

How we're this far into Halo 4 and they still have yet to patch the killcam astonishes me. From day 1 people were complaining about people being hackers and aimbots because they would die and see, like you said, the enemy clumsily 5 shotting the pillar 10 feet away from them.

Originally Posted by Lilfrier

Compare that to Call of Duty, and you see what I mean. The Killstreaks are MUCH stronger/capable of changing a game than getting a great ordinance in Halo (Chopper Gunner vs. Sniper/Shotgun, even a Rocket Launcher in Big Team). Instead of 7 primary weapon choices, you get 10 assault rifles, 9 SMGs, 4 LMGs, 4 shotguns, and 4 sniper rifles in Black Ops. Instead of 7 starter primary weapons to balance, you're talking about THIRTY-ONE. Who is legitimately going to choose the Dragunov and its goofy scope over the PSG-1 in the end? So many of the guns there are just inferior to a crazy degree that ruins any hope of using them.

Call of Duty hurts itself with its attempt at great variety in the weapon balance department. Then, they have to have the over-the-top things like Chopper Gunner and AC-130 for Killstreaks because all of the strong weapons are already starter options. If they cut back on the weapon types to start with (maybe assault rifles and SMGs only), then made kill streaks a choice between a shotgun, sniper, and LMG, it would probably be a better-balanced system.

I agree, Halo's killstreaks are hardly game breaking at all. Mostly just annoying when, like I said in my first post, I get dropped with Needler, Pulse Grenade, Speed Boost and the enemy is choosing between Shotgun, Beam Rifle, and Damage Boost. Such is RNG though.

I would definitely take that any day over dying for my 6th consecutive time from the chopper gunner sitting over my spawn and blasting me away a millisecond after I spawn.

Halo has always been amazing BECAUSE of the weapon balance, and I think that's what makes it a better game competitively. I admit I'll hop on Black Ops 2 just because it's easy to do so and still do well. Halo it's a lot harder to hop into matchmaking alone and expect to compete against even a team of two playing together.

Originally Posted by Kissme

The problem comes when bad players expect to clear hardmode content as quickly as average or upper echelon players.
Accept your limitations.

Originally Posted by Rennadrel

Admittedly, I enjoy beer more as a beverage that I can appreciate rather then getting drunk.

I've never seen the huge appeal with the latest CoD games, they are nothing special in my eyes. I don't hate it or say its bad, but its not great or anything special. To me its just another military shooter

CoD's BO2 Has an auto aim perk, lights the guy up, thru walls, shows them to you everywhere. Almost auto aim but still not. I do not like it, makes it way to easy, I dont use this option and wish it was not there.
Halo 4 has nothing close to this, it has a slight aim assist (there is a dif my friend) Where as it pretty much just makes your aimer turn red on enemies and slighty bigger, if you are up close and face to face the aimer it's self can move a couple degrees.

Neither is auto aim, and Halo's is leaps less horrible then CoD's

Also, got into CoD with CoD2, loved them all uptil World at War (this is my fav actually) then they just seem to have gotten stale for me, I am also one of those people upset Black ops was not Vietnam like expected. and BO2 *shudder* even farther away.

When I say "auto-aim," I mean an in-game function that automatically adjusts the location of your reticle at some point. No, the slight drag you get in CoD and Halo is not nearly as extreme as the hacks seen on PC, but they still fit into the "auto-aim" category, even if they're carefully renamed something like "aim assist."

Halo has Promethean Vision, which allows you to see people through walls, so they're not exactly breaking new ground there, and I am mostly OK with having that in the game, as it kind of seems like a feasible technology to be added to the real-life battlefield in the near future.

And don't say that the "aim assist" is for in-close fighting. First off, that's still terrible. If you are not able to move your reticle yourself, tough. Learn to aim or keep on dying. Welfare aiming just makes the reputation of console shooters worse. On top of that, it's definitely NOT only in close-quarters combat that the aim assist turns on. It has done its thing for me while zoomed in on multiple occasions, both in Halo and in CoD. I loved that Black Ops let you turn it off (Halo and Modern Warfare do not), as it's really annoying when you're trying to use a precision weapon, a second enemy crosses your line of fire, and the sight gets dragged away from your initial target. I just had it happen in Halo 4 a day or two ago, when I was trying to shoot a guy from a distance on Complex, so saying it is an in-close thing is a fallacy.

First of all, you clearly have not even played Blops2. It is not a perk but a sight you put on the gun that highlights people through walls within 25 feet (~7.6 meters) if they are stationary. That is neither auto aim nor an aimbot. It is specifically designed to give you an edge on camping little bastards.
You can 'sticky targetting' off in COD. It felt the same way to me in Blops as Halo4 with the dragging of the reticule to keep someone in target.

I find it hilarious that so many people liked [email protected] when it was at least the second worst COD ever made (COD3 holds that title).

The biggest problems that COD currently has is that in their engine you shoot and look from the very top of the head of the character model, which makes 'head glitching' the worst problem in the game, by far. The next problem is no-scoping but that is also related to the engine.

I think Blops fixed a lot of issues with the series, such as nerfing the hell out of 'panic knife' and adding the MMS so you can see campers through walls. They also made Ghost only protect you if you are moving at least at a walk and toned down a lot of the killstreaks.

hehe, I forgot it was a sight not a perk.... I own all CoD's spet Bo2 yet, and I WILL get it, because I like CoD, I play it about everyother day at a buddies.
I also said it was not auto aiming. I still don't like it.

The sticky targeting as you called it is what I was trying to say, where your aimer moves slighty to stay on someone. In Halo I know its up close, or the aimer is just pretty much bigger at long distance. I don't know about CoD's.

I like world at war because I enjoy WWII games, I prefer modern warfares multiplayer then world at wars, but I like the it better still none the less, I also play campagin first, everytime. Maybe thats why I liked it?
No CoD vietnam makes me sad lol, and that sadness is directed to the lameness and almost just a modernfarware clone the bo's has turned out to be.
Yippie, to lines of the same game running, realeasing every other year? wooooo lmao

EDIT, yet I still buy them, BO2 being the only one I have not gotten at launch, I will wait till this one is cheaper and perhaps not get the next one? who knows, I miss my WWII CoD, give me vietnam damnit. Even conflict did lol

If people want to be FPS elitists and pretend they're better at a game than others because they pick a game that is supposedly harder and takes more skill, then they can go to the battlefield series. The funny thing is, no matter how much people hate on CoD games, the gaming developers all copy a bit from the series and put it into their game. Loadouts, sprint, perks, ordinance drops... all are spinoffs of CoD staples. Battlefield 3 took a lot from CoD too, it is a huge leap from what BFBC2 was when looking over the BF series as a whole. So as much as people hate on it, the people keep buying and companies know CoD is the cashcow, so they take what they can from it.

I had to stop reading and reply at this point. Reading this, I knew that the rest of your post had little validity. You think that everything is a CoD spinoff? In case you missed it, the FPS genre existed before CoD. That Halo 4 added loadouts and constant sprinting doesn't make CoD some magic pioneer and innovator in the genre. Basically, the drones buy the rehashed stuff, and since the gaming industry has (sadly) become so cutthroat and money-hungry, people are basically forced to either steal from each other or have a series canceled. Yeah, things have been taken from CoD, but don't act like CoD is the end-all, be-all for FPS innovation, because they haven't REALLY brought anything new, original, or impressive. They're the pop music of gaming--it sells like hotcakes, no matter how shallow and unimpressive the final product REALLY is in the annals of gaming.

Yeah, I went somewhat overboard with that analysis, but it's because though I like CoD well enough, it has done a lot of work harming the gaming industry. That franchise is the EPITOME of rehashed content, and since it succeeds, people follow suit, and you end up with a gaming industry that punishes innovation and rewards sticking to a tired formula.

What I guess I am saying is that Activision knows that this franchise will always sell. Instead of, you know, using that blessing to advance the gaming industry and FPS genre with innovation, they sit on their laurels, make cash, and teach other companies to do the same. Basically, they do like the sports genre, but the sports genre can't really help itself because you cannot innovate on the game of NFL football like you can a fictional world like what is found in Call of Duty.

I feel like I'm just rambling and not aiming for a point in my statement anymore, so I'll just stop now. Call of Duty sells well, and I respect that, but I don't respect Activision's refusal to use its position of power to better the gaming industry. That is all.

MW1 was very fun, MW2..meh had its moments, World at War, my favorite cod game (singleplayer+nazi zombies)
Moden Warfar 2/3 ONLY fun parts for me was doing those Spec Ops missons co-op, those were more than than campaign or online
Rest is erm....as Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw at The Escapist says: Spunkgargleweewee games^^
I did buy Black Ops 1/2, kinda regretting those decisions

Played a few over the years, people said "such and such was so amazing". Played for a few hours and was so bored. Not sure how people enjoy all these multiple FPS games released every year. It's all the same.

I don't dispute that SOME of these games are fun. I've never had a learning issue with shooters. I think LoL, WoW, and DotA 2 are the only games I've ever had to actually stop and learn...well, and the music games like Guitar Hero, but they didn't take too long to catch on with. I gave up on LoL and DotA 2 though, as their camera angles and the overall feel of those games just bothers me. They're frustrating, to say the least. I'm not an RTS person, but the single-player (in terms of who you control) RTS idea is a downgrade from the army-based RTS titles, in my opinion.

Really, I'm kind of thinking that this is just a weak trolling comment, even though I'm giving a legitimate response. To just come in, give the statement "learn to play," and not expound your purpose behind those words whatsoever. I'd expect that almost everyone on MMO-Champion has played Call of Duty, more than like multiple titles in the franchise, even. To say that people's dissatisfaction with poorly-made elements of the game because they do not know how to play is way up there in the "trolling/ignorant" realm. What, we don't know how to play Call of Duty because Infinity Ward and Treyarch have issues balancing the weapon damage? We don't know how to play because we don't like it when there is no innovation?

Please reply with a legitimate explanation of your stance, or simply state that you are trolling, PLEASE. I would hate to continue life thinking that someone honestly has this thought process without knowing how that conclusion is made.

MW3, not BOII. And while you can't "tell", it's one of those things that does actually affect your enjoyment of a game. One of the reasons Blizzard games are widely enjoyed and praised is because of how insanely tight the controls are. The games are hyperresponsive, and that in turn makes you feel more in control of your characters.

I wouldn't venture a guess as to why MW3 was so responsive, I'm simply commenting that it's an indication of how well made the game is. BF3 definitely has more scale and variety, but I'm just talking about the responsiveness of the games.

Never had any issues in BF3 with responsiveness myself I can play with a 5100 dps mouse spin 360 degree's and instantly stop aim zoom in and shoot some one in one move with out any delay, lag or unresponsiveness at all. The only thing with BF3 as it has is with the larger maps, with the good physics and bullet drop on all weapons your connection lag/ping does effect how the game responds, myself I have a ping of 18 - 25 so I have zero issues unless I try and play on US servers which is 100 ping area and then I notice shooting ppl and missing even though I'd using a sniping rifle and aiming at there chest. But this is an issue with any FPS online game really.

I have never felt my character out of control in BF3, or the COD games I have played so for me its moot point, the gameplay it what its about really.

Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men: Jean Rostand. Yeah, Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour!.
Classic: "The tank is the driver, the healer is the fuel, and the DPS are the kids sitting in the back seat screaming and asking if they're there yet."
Irony >> "do they even realize that having a state religion IS THE REASON WE LEFT BRITTEN? god these people are idiots"

Played a few over the years, people said "such and such was so amazing". Played for a few hours and was so bored. Not sure how people enjoy all these multiple FPS games released every year. It's all the same.

Hey, when you're good at something, it's great to show that you are. Not saying I'm so pro-level gamer or anything, but I hold my own almost every single time online (I play on Xbox LIVE, not among the PC master race, as my gaming setup is currently a bed, and mouse-and-keyboard gaming is sketchy on a bed...I'd know, I tried). Halo comes out every 3 years or so, and I'm done with Infinity Ward, so what we're really talking for me is a shooter every 2 years, sometimes 2 in a year if they align right.

For Halo, I really like the campaign and the overall balance/competitiveness of the multiplayer. I've always like Halo multiplayer more than Call of Duty, no question. However, I like to change it up. You get bored with one FPS title if you hammer away at the same thing nonstop for 3 years. Mixing in Black Ops with Halo: Reach was a good way to break the monotony. I basically played one for a couple of months, then went back to the other. It's like asking why people like multiple games of ANY genre. Why do people like LoL AND DotA? Why do people like WoW AND ToR? Why do people keep buying the Final Fantasy and Pokemon games? People have a preferred gaming genres (mine are sports and FPS, but I also like the other genres to varying degrees and engage in playing them from time to time). I don't grab any game with a gun involved, but I do like to play the different ones and see how good I am (Halo, Call of Duty) or am not (Counter-Strike, Team Fortress...really, Xbox vs. PC because I grew up more with the Xbox than on a PC).

I don't get how people could stick with just Counter-Strike for a decade while waiting for CS:GO myself. There's a point at which I think any game wears out its welcome, even if it's only in the short-term. I don't play Halo 3 anymore, but I will go back through the campaign with my brother-in-law at some point, as he's not been through the Halo campaigns but is into the online play. Some people like repetition, some like change. That's all there is too it.